rda: training and continuing education needs in academic ... · rda: training and continuing...

3

RDA: Training and Continuing Education Needs in Academic LibrariesYuji TosakaCataloging/Metadata Librarian, The College of New Jersey, Email: [email protected]

Jung-ran ParkAssociate Professor, College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Email: [email protected]

This study aims at gaining a better understanding of the current state and needs of RDA training among cataloging and metadata practitioners. Using nationwide survey data focusing on the academic library sector, this study finds that while training activities since RDA’s release in 2010 show a positive correlation with catalogers’ levels of RDA knowledge, it also finds an alarmingly low level of reported familiarity with a broad range of RDA topics even on the eve of U.S. national RDA implementation. The most consistent finding is the existence of a substantial divide in professional preparation for RDA between practitioners in research universities and 4-year colleges and universi-ties. This indicates that it is particularly important to develop effective training programs that will meet the needs of practicing professionals in smaller cataloging and metadata departments and units so that the same training opportunities are offered regardless of their institutional affiliations and local resources available. In terms of future training needs, a clear emphasis is placed on practical RDA topics and questions such as RDA core elements, new and changed instructions in RDA, RDA vocabularies and concepts, and RDA in relation to MARC 21. The results also indicate that convenience, cost, or flexibility is among the most important factors determining preferred modes of deliver-ing professional training for RDA.

Keywords: RDA, catalogers, metadata professionals, continuing education, needs as-sessment

Introduction

RDA: Resource Description & Ac-cess is a new cataloging code that

has been developed as a replacement to Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The development of RDA marks the first major catalog code revision in more than 30 years in the Eng-lish-speaking library community. While RDA is backward-compatible with most AACR2 instructions, its instructions have been reworked to align more directly with the new conceptual model for bibliograph-ic control as developed in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). As a practical application of the

FRBR model, RDA is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that is easily adaptable to accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving technology environments, while also producing well-formed data that can be shared easily with other metadata com-munities in an emerging linked data envi-ronment (IFLA Study Group on the Func-tional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 1998).

Many RDA-related questions have aris-en in the cataloging community over recent years. Questions include key areas of differ-ence between RDA and AACR2, compari-son between RDA and other metadata stan-dards, impact on encoding standards such

J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 55, No. 1—(Winter) January 2014ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2013 Association for Library and Information Science Education

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE4

as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end-user considerations, and practitioners’ views on the new cataloging code (Tosaka & Park, 2013). At this point, however, the most critical question in the field may be how catalogers and paraprofessionals can prepare themselves for RDA implementa-tion. A successful transition from AACR2 depends first and foremost upon how eas-ily and smoothly practicing catalogers and metadata creators can learn and apply the new cataloging code effectively. This tran-sition may be even more challenging in the changing cataloging department envi-ronment today. Comparing transitions to AACR2 and RDA, Inter (2011) wondered, for example, how the cataloging commu-nity could best train the army of parapro-fessional copy catalogers that handles the bulk of daily cataloging production in most technical services departments, and wheth-er RDA implementation might be hindered by this ongoing process of deskilling in the cataloging profession.

A number of studies were initially con-ducted—mostly by national library orga-nizations—to survey practitioners’ views on RDA training when the new cataloging code was published for official release in June 2010 (Tosaka & Park, 2013). The primary goal of this study was to replicate these earlier studies and evaluate practitio-ners’ preparation and expectations about professional training on the eve of RDA implementation. Using nationwide online survey data, mostly drawn from cataloging and metadata librarians in U.S. academic libraries, we sought to investigate prevail-ing levels of preparation among catalog-ing and metadata practitioners, perceived readiness to implement the new catalog-ing code, and perceived areas of training topics and types of continuing education resources needed to support the successful transition from AACR2.

Overview of Past RDA Surveys

The implementation of AACR2 in the early 1980s sparked controversies in the

U.S. library community that were once de-scribed as the “war of AACR2” (Martell, 1981). By contrast, the reception of RDA arguably has not reached the same level of criticism and acrimony. The official release of RDA was followed by several surveys designed to gather information about cata-logers’ views on the technical, operational, and financial implications of its implemen-tation. These results threw much needed light on how practitioners in the field felt about RDA costs and benefits and how those issues could be better addressed in preparing a smooth transition to the new cataloging code (Tosaka & Park, 2013).

U.S. National Libraries RDA Test

In early 2009, the three U.S. national li-braries announced a joint plan to test RDA and conduct a systematic review of its op-erational, technical, and economic impli-cations. The test was intended in large part to address concerns within the cataloging community, raised most prominently in the On the Record report of the LC Work-ing Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (2008). Following RDA’s public release in June 2010, official testers from the three U.S. national libraries and 26 institutions produced test RDA records during the three-month period (October 1–December 31) (Bloss, 2011; Cronin, 2011; Kuhagen, 2011; McCutcheon, 2011; Shieh, 2011; Wacker, Han, & Dartt, 2011). One of the main evaluative tools used for the U.S. RDA test was a set of online surveys designed to obtain both quantita-tive and qualitative information about the test participants’ experience with the new cataloging code. More than 8,500 survey responses were submitted, mostly during the individual record creation process. At the same time, the U.S. RDA Test Coordi-nating Committee (2011) also created an online survey to collect feedback on RDA from any interested parties, regardless of their actual RDA cataloging experience.

Overall, the survey results show interest-ing differences between the official testers

RDA: Training and Continuing Education Needs in Academic Libraries 5

and the non-RDA test participants. Regard-ing RDA implementation, the first group expressed far more positive responses than did the second group, two-thirds (66%) of which did not create or update RDA re-cords during the test period. Among the RDA testers, 70% agreed that the U.S. li-brary community should implement RDA (25% “yes”; 45% “yes with changes”). In contrast, only 22% took the same position in the second group (12% “yes”; “10% “yes with changes”). On the other hand, 34% of the first group was “ambivalent” toward RDA and opposition to RDA implementa-tion was the most common response (44%) in the second group (U.S. RDA Test Coor-dinating Committee, 2011).

It seems that the different attitudes out-lined above are associated with levels of actual experience creating RDA records. For example, while many official testers reported a lack of confidence in their abil-ity to apply RDA efficiently, their average record creation times were halved as they gained experience producing original RDA records. Their overall positive opinions, and particularly the high percentage of “yes with changes” responses, suggest that fur-ther training in and familiarity with the real production environment may do much to alleviate professional concerns about the transition from AACR2 by giving the cata-loging community opportunities to see how RDA can be useful—at least with some minor needed changes—in creating biblio-graphic and authority records compatible with existing catalogs and databases (U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, 2011; Tosaka & Park, 2013).

RDA National Surveys in Other English-Speaking Countries

Prior to the U.S. RDA test, national library organizations in other English-speaking countries also conducted surveys to assess practitioners’ views, particularly relating to RDA training needs. The Aus-tralian Committee on Cataloguing and the National Library of New Zealand initiated

their surveys in March 2010, asking the same set of questions with slight national modifications (Kiorgaard, 2010; Todd, Stretton, & Stewart, 2010). The Technical Services Interest Group of the Canadian Library Association (2010) administered its survey between April and June 2010. Following the official RDA release, the British Library and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals Cataloguing and Indexing Group conduct-ed an online survey in July 2010 to evalu-ate training and support needs in prepar-ing the British cataloging community for RDA implementation (Danskin, 2010). As discussed later, these international surveys each produced slightly different results on RDA training needs and methods. How-ever, they combined to paint a clear pic-ture of working catalogers’ concerns about preparing themselves and their staff for RDA while meeting the daily demands of cataloging production and management.

RDA Surveys by Different Library Sizes

In addition to the “official” surveys conducted by national library organiza-tions, two other published surveys have shed some light on RDA training issues. Sanchez (2011) conducted a survey of cat-aloging librarians on the transition from AACR2 prior to RDA’s official release in June 2010. About 70 percent of the respon-dents were catalogers and cataloging man-agers. The majority were from small to me-dium-sized libraries, with 10 staff or less to be trained on RDA. Sanchez’s survey revealed that some of the biggest concerns in the field were related to RDA learning and training issues, as well as impacts on the cataloging workflow and productivity and RDA implementation. By contrast, Sanner (2012) surveyed cataloging depart-ment managers in large U.S. academic libraries participating in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Her online survey, conducted in early 2011, was de-signed to measure RDA training and its perceptions in ARL libraries—including


those which had participated in the U.S. RDA test. These libraries, in her opinion, should be better prepared for the adoption of RDA due to their size and leadership in the academic library community and thus should provide a good window into RDA training processes and challenges prior to full-scale RDA implementation. The sur-vey results overall were far from conclu-sive, however, as substantial training for RDA had not yet occurred even in many ARL libraries at that early stage.

Research Questions and Survey Method

Given their importance for the success-ful adoption of RDA, a lack of surveys conducted on RDA training and continu-ing education issues after the first year of its official release has created a critical knowledge gap in the U.S. library commu-nity. The goal of this study, therefore, was to fill this research gap and contribute a fuller understanding of practitioners’ per-ceptions and future aspirations for RDA cataloging training as the Library of Con-gress (LC) moved forward with the full implementation of RDA. In particular, we sought to understand how academic librar-ies were preparing their cataloging and metadata staff for the adoption of RDA in light of their leadership in shaping the direction of the larger cataloging commu-nity, as seen, for example, in the prepon-derance of academic libraries in the U.S. RDA test (U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, 2011). To that end, we aimed to address the following research ques-tions in our survey design:

1. What is the current state of catalogers’ knowledge about the new cataloging code on the eve of full RDA implemen-tation? What RDA training have they received? Has anything changed as a result of the ongoing discussion and training in the cataloging community in more than two years since RDA’s of-ficial release?

2. What are the perceptions of the catalog-ing community regarding RDA training topics that will be needed so that practi-tioners can retrain themselves and their staff (if any) and function confidently as RDA catalogers?

3. What are the perceptions of the catalog-ing community regarding the types of RDA training programs and methods? What are the most preferred programs and methods for RDA training in the future?

To examine these research questions, we conducted an online survey using the Qualtrics survey software. The survey included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. To facilitate comparison, the survey was designed to ask the same questions tested in the previous studies as closely as possible (Danskin, 2010; Kiorgaard, 2010; Sanchez, 2011; Sanner, 2012; Todd et al., 2010; TSIG RDA Train-ing Needs Assessment Working Group, 2010; U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Com-mittee, 2011). The survey also included many multiple-choice questions that asked respondents to check all answers that ap-plied.

Survey participants were recruited through survey invitation messages and subsequent follow-up reminders distrib-uted through 11 electronic mailing lists targeted at cataloging and metadata pro-fessionals (see Table 1). These mailing lists were selected based on their represen-tative characteristics in the cataloging and metadata profession. No incentives were offered to increase survey participation. During the 33-day period (November 13–December 15, 2012), a total of 689 people responded to our survey invitations. Out of these survey starters, the Qualtrics system recorded 444 participants provid-ing responses to all relevant questions (64 percent). Considering the length and complexity of the survey (25 questions), as well as its voluntary basis, the survey completion rate was higher than expected (Galesic, 2004; Archer, 2008). The rela-


tively high survey completion rate may be a good reflection of the importance of RDA training issues within the catalog-ing and metadata community on the eve of RDA implementation.

Respondents’ Profile

The respondents’ professional positions (see Figure 1) indicated that most of them (72.7%) were cataloging and metadata professionals (managers and librarians). Many of those who chose the “Other” an-

swer also identified their positions as asso-ciated with the field of library cataloging and/or metadata, such as “authority con-trol coordinator” and “cataloging trainer.” As such, it is reasonable to assume that the survey results were based on the self-selected group of respondents who could provide valid, usable data relevant to the questions that fitted our study goals.

The survey data showed that the respon-dents tended to be a group of highly expe-rienced library professionals (see Figure 2). Nearly 70 percent of the respondents

Table 1. Electronic Mailing Lists Used for the Survey.

1. Autocat: [email protected]. DC-GENERAL listserv: [email protected]. Electronic Resources in Libraries listserv: [email protected]. Encoded Archival Description listserv: [email protected]. Library and Information Technology Association listserv: [email protected]. Metadata librarians listserv: [email protected]. Online Audiovisual Catalogers listserv: [email protected]. PCCLIST listserv: [email protected]. RDA-L listserv: [email protected]

10. SERIALST listserv: [email protected]. Text Encoding Initiative listserv: [email protected]

Figure 1. Respondents’ Professional Positions. N = 600. Note: Numbers in figures and tables may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.


(67.9%) reported 10 years or more of cata-loging experience. Approximately 40 per-cent (39.8%) report 20 years or more of professional experience, while more than one out of eight respondents (13.6%) re-ported that their experience began prior to U.S. implementation of AACR2 in 1981 (i.e., more than 31 years’ experience). These data appeared to reflect the age de-mographic characteristics of the catalog-ing profession, as previous studies found that cataloging librarians were older than other subgroups like reference librarians and that new hires were not being added to replace retiring catalogers (Leysen & Boydston, 2005).

Regarding their institutional affiliations, more than three-quarters of the respon-dents (76.2%) reported that they worked in academic libraries. (It therefore should be noted here that the comparisons that fol-low may not always be as valid as the cur-rent article implies, because the non-U.S. surveys reviewed earlier were not con-ducted across academic libraries only.) In developing the survey question, we used a much simplified version of the popular U.S. Carnegie Classification of Institu-tions of Higher Education (2010) to cap-ture institutional diversity in the academic library community. As shown in Figure 3, more than half of the academic library respondents (55.7%) were from research universities with doctorate programs, fol-lowed by those in four-year colleges and

universities with or without master’s and professional degree programs (27.7%). As such, the survey data tended to repre-sent the experience and perspectives of cataloging and metadata professionals in academic, particularly research, libraries. The predominance of survey participants from research libraries, however, may provide good evidence to support San-ner’s idea that they are in the forefront, in both resource and staff, of preparing for RDA implementation and are thus more interested in providing opinions on issues and problems they have identified with the new cataloging code (Sanner, 2012).

The survey data also revealed one major divide in the academic library community. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the number of cataloging staff to be trained for RDA varied significantly between research uni-versities and 4-year colleges and universi-ties—two major academic library catego-ries in the current survey. The correlation between types and sizes of academic insti-tutions should come as no surprise, as U.S. academic library statistics have shown substantial differences in all key metrics between doctoral degree-granting institu-tions and the rest. The former group out-spend master’s and professional degree-granting institutions and undergraduate institutions more than four and ten times on average, respectively (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2012). Ac-cording to our survey data, 30.8 percent

Figure 2. Respondents’ Years of Experience. N = 595.


of the respondents from research universi-ties indicated that their institutions had 7 or more librarians (FTE) for RDA train-ing, while more than half (51.5%) identi-fied 7 or more paraprofessionals (FTE) to train on RDA in their libraries. In contrast,

more than 90 percent of the respondents from 4-year institutions (92.0%) reported 1-3 librarians (FTE) to be trained on RDA, while almost all (95.9%) indicated that their libraries had 6 or fewer paraprofes-sionals (FTE) who required RDA training.

Figure 3. Academic Library Respondents’ Institutional Affiliations. N = 631.

Figure 4. Number of Cataloging Staff (FTE) for RDA Training—Librarians. N = 221 (research university), 113 (4-year institution).


Results

Levels of RDA Knowledge on the Eve of RDA Implementation

The U.S. RDA Test participants spent the first three months receiving substantial training for RDA before starting RDA re-cord creation. As such, evaluation of their pre-test RDA knowledge was outside the scope of the online surveys conducted during the formal test period. However, the state of catalogers’ existing knowledge about the new cataloging code is often a major topic of interest in other surveys de-scribed earlier.

For example, Sanchez’s survey (2011) showed that only 30 percent of her respon-dents rated their knowledge of RDA issues as above average. Likewise, according to the Australian survey (Kiorgaard, 2010), less than a quarter of cataloging staff were reported to have a “moderate” (21%) or “high” (2%) level of RDA knowledge on the eve of its official release. The percent-age of “moderate” responses was slightly higher (32%) in the parallel New Zea-land survey, while “high” levels of RDA

knowledge received the same percentage of responses (Todd et al., 2010). The Brit-ish survey also found limited familiarity with RDA among catalogers. Less than one-third of the respondents reported that they could “explain” or “understand” RDA (Danskin, 2010). The Canadian survey went further to ask more detailed questions about respondents’ levels of knowledge or familiarity with various RDA issues or elements. Overview of RDA, its develop-ment, FRBR, and the entity-relationship model were rated as the most familiar top-ics by the survey participants. New RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2 was the topic with the least familiarity, a result that was “expected,” according to the survey report, because RDA was still in the draft form at the time of the survey (TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group, 2010).

As with those previous studies, our sur-vey also asked the respondents to rate their familiarity with various aspects of RDA on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all familiar” (1) to “extremely fa-miliar” (5). Table 2 presents a list of RDA topics arranged by the percentage of those

Figure 5. Number of Cataloging Staff (FTE) for RDA Training—Paraprofessionals. N = 221 (re-search university), 113 (4-year institution).


choosing “very familiar” and “extremely familiar” responses. Overview of RDA, the background of RDA development, and FRBR and FRAD models were among the topics that they were most familiar with. Unlike the Canadian survey, the current survey found increased familiarity with some practical RDA issues, such as “re-placing GMD (general material designa-tion) with three new RDA elements” and “similarities between RDA and AACR2.” These results may not come as a particular surprise as the library community moved closer to RDA implementation. However, the low levels of familiarity reported for a wide range of RDA topics were rather alarming, including “new RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2,” “new and changed instructions in RDA,” and “LC policies about RDA options.”

As discussed earlier, Sanner (2012) suspected that research libraries should

have been better prepared for the adop-tion of RDA due to their size and leader-ship in the library community. To see if there was a variation in levels of RDA knowledge across academic library types, we compared the data for respondents from research universities and 4-year uni-versities and colleges. Community col-leges were excluded because the survey received only 20 responses (3.2%) from this category of academic libraries, a pos-sible indicator of the lack of professional involvement and/or preparation for RDA in this library sector. As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences in the respondents’ levels of RDA knowledge between the two academic library types. More respondents from research universi-ties reported that they were “very famil-iar” or “extremely familiar” with regard to all RDA topics listed in the survey. The re-sults raise concerns about the uneven state

Table 2. Familiarity with RDA Topics.

Topic

“Very Familiar” & ”Extremely Familiar”

All Respondents Research Library 4-Year Institution

Replacing GMD with three new RDA elements 70.8% 78.6% 67.0%Overview of RDA 58.4% 65.7% 52.8%Similarities between RDA and AACR2 57.1% 66.3% 47.2%Background of RDA development 54.0% 60.9% 45.4%FRBR and FRAD models 52.8% 63.5% 45.4%RDA and MARC21 48.9% 58.4% 35.5%New RDA vocabularies and concepts 46.3% 53.0% 39.8%RDA core elements 44.1% 50.2% 40.7%Resource description in terms of entities, at-tributes, and relationships

40.9% 49.0% 28.7%

New RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2

39.8% 49.3% 35.5%

RDA structures 39.6% 47.0% 30.6%User tasks 39.5% 50.2% 31.1%New and changed instructions in RDA 38.1% 46.5% 28.0%RDA’s relationship to ISBD 33.6% 39.6% 34.6%LC policies about RDA options 31.5% 41.5% 15.7%International Cataloguing Principles 29.7% 35.0% 20.8%Using RDA with Dublin Core or other metadata standards

6.2% 6.0% 1.9%

N= 487; 202 (Research University), 108 (4-Year Institution).


of professional knowledge about the new cataloging code as the library community moves forward with full implementation of RDA.

RDA Training Experiences on the Eve of RDA Implementation

Sanner’s survey (2012) is the only published study examining RDA training that has occurred in the cataloging com-munity. This is not surprising because the other surveys were conducted when the new cataloging code was initially released in 2010. While based on responses from a small number of cataloging department heads in ARL libraries, Sanner’s survey suggests that more than 70 percent of their departments received at least some informal or formal RDA training during the first 8 months after RDA’s official re-lease. The most common types of training sessions are webinars and in-house group training, followed by national association workshops or presentations and web-based courses. The content covered in the RDA training attended by the cataloging heads included almost all major RDA topics, ranging from departures from AACR2 to FRAD. Departures from AACR2 were rat-ed as the most helpful, followed by FRBR and different structure of RDA. Nearly all who received training reported increased levels of RDA understanding in Sanner’s survey.

In line with Sanner’s study, our sur-vey asked a series of questions to capture a snapshot of RDA training experiences on the eve of its implementation. Respon-dents were asked how the cataloging staff in their institutions gained knowledge of the new cataloging code. As shown in Ta-ble 3, LC online materials were, on aver-age, the most important source of training for RDA, with webinars and other online training sessions, self-teaching from the RDA Toolkit, mailing lists, non-LC online materials, and conference presentations following as the most common training sources. What is worth noting here is the

popularity of online resources that allow library professionals to study indepen-dently outside the physical classroom. The results indicated that convenience, cost, and flexibility were among the most im-portant factors determining types of RDA training attended (see also Park, Tosaka, Maszaros, & Lu, 2010). Once the survey responses were examined by type of aca-demic library, however, it became clear that self-training from LC and non-LC online materials and the RDA Toolkit occurred significantly less frequently in 4-year colleges and universities—further evidence that smaller academic librar-ies had not “kept up” in preparing for the adoption of RDA. Also, “in-house training (using your own trainers)” and “colleagues at work” were used far less commonly as RDA training methods in these institu-tions, a result that may point to the unique challenges faced by catalogers working outside large research libraries where staff with individual contributions of skills and expertise can be brought together into a training design and development team.

The survey participants were also asked to indicate the nature of their experience with RDA. In the shared cataloging en-vironment, it is not surprising to find that viewing records created using RDA was the single most important part of the re-spondents’ experience with the new cata-loging code (see Table 4). Alarmingly, the results by type of academic library showed that use of the RDA Toolkit was substan-tially less common in 4-year colleges and universities (e.g., “read the texts of RDA online using RDA Toolkit”—28.3% vs. 48.1% in research universities; “use RDA Toolkit regularly”—4.4% vs. 23.6% in re-search universities). As noted in the 2010 U.S. RDA Test (U.S. RDA Test Coordi-nating Committee, 2011), the ongoing cost of an online subscription to the RDA Toolkit may have had significant impact on local cataloging operations outside re-search libraries, as libraries with smaller budgets may have found it more challeng-ing to transition from the old practice of


keeping print copies available as one-time purchases in the AACR2 environment.

More than two years had already passed since RDA’s official release when this sur-vey was conducted. Has exposure to more types of RDA training activities helped enhance RDA knowledge as intended? Our data suggest that the answer is a re-sounding “Yes.” We report “very famil-iar” and “extremely familiar” responses to each 5-point question about their levels of familiarity with RDA topics, calculate the average familiarity for different levels of training exposure, and summarize the re-sults in Figure 6. As clearly shown, when they received more types of training, the

Table 3. Types of RDA Training Received in Respondents’ Institutions.

Topic

Percentage

All Respondents

Research University

4-Year Institution

Self-taught from LC online materials, such as Webcasts, Power-Point training modules

67.7% 77.6% 62.3%

Webinars and other online training sessions 63.7% 67.8% 73.7%Self-taught from RDA Toolkit 56.0% 71.0% 53.5%Mailing lists 50.7% 52.8% 57.0%Self-taught from non-LC online materials 42.1% 45.8% 36.8%Conference presentations 42.1% 47.2% 46.5%Not uniform across staff 36.9% 42.1% 36.8%Books 30.8% 31.8% 36.0%In-house training (using your own trainers) 28.9% 42.1% 14.0%Professional journals 26.6% 28.5% 26.3%Colleagues at work (excluding hands-on training and presenta-tions)

22.2% 29.9% 15.8%

JSC (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) Web site

21.2% 27.6% 15.8%

Blogs 20.1% 19.6% 20.2%Off-site training, in-state, one day or less 15.7% 13.1% 21.1%Off-site training, national venue, one day or less 6.7% 5.1% 8.8%Other 5.5% 6.1% 6.1%In-house training (using external trainers) 5.4% 8.4% 2.6%Off-site training, national venue, more than one day 4.6% 6.1% 2.6%Library school course 4.4% 2.3% 6.1%Off-site training, in-state, more than one day 3.4% 2.3% 0.9%Off-site training, regional venue, one day or less 3.4% 3.3% 4.4%

Off-site training, regional venue, more than one day 1.0% 0.5% 1.8%

N = 523; 214 (Research University), 114 (4-Year Institution).

number of RDA topics with which the respondents were “very familiar” or “ex-tremely familiar” tended to be larger.

Perceptions of RDA Training Needs

One of the major questions that moti-vated previous studies was what content of RDA training was considered to be helpful for professional training during the transi-tion period. Since the large majority of re-sponses in the Australian and New Zealand surveys indicated limited levels of current knowledge about the new cataloging code, it was not surprising that the top four top-ics suggested for future RDA training in


both countries are all concerned with prac-tical cataloging questions—“cataloging with RDA (structure, vocabulary, core elements, using RDA in daily work),” “changes from AACR,” “MARC21 and RDA,” and “use of the RDA online prod-uct.” Many respondents “wanted the train-ing to start with the basics and be practi-cal” (Kiorgaard, 2010; Todd et al., 2010).

The Canadian survey also showed that RDA training was a primary area of con-cern within the cataloging community, and practical cataloging questions—e.g., “new and changed instructions,” “new RDA vo-cabulary and concepts,” “RDA structure,” “differences between AACR2 and RDA,” “similarities between AACR2 and RDA,” and “mapping between RDA elements and

Table 4. Respondents’ Experience with RDA.

Topic

Percentage

All Respondents

Research University

4-Year Institution

Viewed records created using RDA 84.7% 86.5% 86.7%Read the parts of RDA most relevant to my/our work and inter-ests

54.3% 56.7% 60.2%

Navigated RDA Toolkit and tried some of its features 47.6% 56.7% 48.7%Read the text of RDA online using RDA Toolkit 36.5% 48.1% 28.3%Read drafts of RDA posted on the JSC Web site 26.9% 28.4% 17.7%Other 19.2% 19.2% 18.6%Use RDA Toolkit regularly 16.3% 23.6% 4.4%Read the text of RDA using the print RDA text 10.8% 11.5% 12.4%Read most of the text of RDA 10.0% 9.6% 8.8%Read the text of RDA using PDFs downloaded from RDA Toolkit

9.6% 12.0% 7.1%

N= 510; 208 (Research University), 113 (4-Year Institution).

Figure 6. Association between Types of RDA Training Received and RDA Familiarity.


MARC21”—were generally rated as the most important topics for RDA training (TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group, 2010). A similar picture also emerged from the British RDA sur-vey. Given fairly limited familiarity with the new cataloging code at the time of the survey, practical questions like “MARC21 and RDA,” “differences between AACR2 and RDA,” and “RDA elements and core elements” were, not surprisingly, rated as the most important topics of interest for RDA training (Danskin, 2010).

Likewise, our survey asked the re-spondents to select and rate three poten-tial topics for RDA training according to their importance. Table 5 continues to show the importance of practical catalog-ing questions. If the responses are simply added without any weight given to their rankings, the top four RDA training top-ics were “RDA core elements” (35.6%), “new and changed instructions in RDA”

(33.8%), “new RDA vocabularies and concepts” (30.5%), and “RDA and MARC 21” (28.8%). The content of RDA train-ing ranked as the most important for the respondents were “new and changed in-structions in RDA” (14.5%) and “RDA core elements” (13.8%), followed by “overview of RDA” (11.4%) and “new RDA vocabularies and concepts” (10.3%). Among these four topics, “overview of RDA” was rarely selected as the second or third most important topics for future RDA training, even though it was by far the most important topic—followed dis-tantly by “RDA core elements” and “new and changed instructions in RDA”—for those who answered that they were neither “very familiar” nor “extremely familiar” with “overview of RDA” (see Table 2). This group was more than twice as likely to rate it as the most important topic for RDA training and accounts for nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of such responses. In con-

Table 5. Topics for Future RDA Training, Ranked by Importance.

Topic

Ranking

Total1 2 3

RDA core elements 13.8% 12.7% 9.1% 35.6%New and changed instructions in RDA 14.5% 11.0% 8.4% 33.8%New RDA vocabularies and concepts 10.3% 11.9% 8.4% 30.5%RDA and MARC21 6.8% 9.5% 12.6% 28.8%New RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2 3.7% 8.4% 12.8% 24.8%Similarities between RDA and AACR2 7.5% 9.0% 7.5% 24.0%Resource description in terms of entities, attributes, and relationships 8.6% 5.3% 9.7% 23.5%RDA structures 5.3% 7.5% 4.0% 16.7%LC policies about RDA options 1.5% 5.9% 7.9% 15.4%Overview of RDA 11.4% 2.6% 0.9% 14.9%Short and long-term impact on resource discovery 4.8% 4.4% 4.2% 13.4%FRBR and FRAD models 5.5% 3.1% 2.0% 10.5%Replacing GMD with three new RDA elements 0.9% 4.8% 4.6% 10.3%Using RDA with Dublin Core or other metadata standards 0.9% 1.3% 2.4% 4.6%User tasks 0.7% 1.3% 2.0% 4.0%RDA’s relationship to ISBD 0.4% 0.9% 1.8% 3.1%Background of RDA development 1.3% 0.2% 1.1% 2.6%Other 1.8% 0.2% 0.2% 2.2%International Cataloguing Principles 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7%

N = 455.


trast, among those who considered them-selves to be “very familiar” or “extremely familiar” with “overview of RDA,” “RDA core elements” and “new and changed in-structions in RDA” were almost equally rated as the most important content of RDA training, followed by “resource de-scription in terms of entities, attributes, and relationships.” These ratings on RDA training were not uniform across types of academic library, however. Again, we found a similar, though smaller, difference between the respondents from 4-year col-leges and universities and research uni-versities, a result that apparently reflects a similar gap in RDA knowledge between the two groups, as shown in Table 2.

In the current shared cataloging envi-ronment, most libraries rely on copy re-cords as the basis for their routine catalog-ing operations. Despite their importance, however, issues of the paraprofessional staff to be trained for RDA received extra

attention only in the 2010 Canadian RDA survey, which asked cataloging supervi-sors to rate the importance of possible RDA training topics for copy catalog-ing staff. Top five topics for RDA train-ing were “new and changed instructions,” “new RDA vocabulary and concepts,” “differences between AACR2 and RDA,” “similarities between AACR2 and RDA,” and “RDA structure” (TSIG RDA Train-ing Needs Assessment Working Group, 2010). Such granular questions about RDA training needs for copy catalogers were not included in the other surveys re-viewed earlier.

In our current survey, top five topics for RDA copy cataloging staff training were “similarities and differences between RDA and AACR2,” “RDA and MARC 21,” “new RDA vocabularies and concepts,” “new RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2,” and “RDA core elements” (see Table 6). In Table 6, one striking

Table 6. Topics for Future RDA Staff Training, Ranked by Importance.

Topic

Ranking

Total1 2 3

Similarities between RDA and AACR2 20.2% 20.5% 10.1% 50.7%RDA and MARC21 8.3% 7.7% 17.8% 33.8%New RDA vocabularies and concepts 10.1% 13.6% 8.3% 32.0%New RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2 3.0% 12.8% 13.6% 29.4%RDA core elements 8.3% 10.7% 10.4% 29.4%Overview of RDA 22.6% 3.9% 0.9% 27.3%New and changed instructions in RDA 8.3% 11.0% 8.0% 27.3%Replacing GMD with three new RDA elements 3.0% 5.6% 11.3% 19.9%RDA structures 4.2% 4.7% 3.6% 12.5%Resource description in terms of entities, attributes, and relationships 3.3% 2.7% 4.2% 10.1%LC policies about RDA options 0.6% 2.1% 4.7% 7.4%FRBR and FRAD models 2.1% 1.5% 1.5% 5.0%User tasks 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% 3.0%Other (please specify) 2.1% 0.0% 0.6% 2.7%Short and long-term impact on resource discovery 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 2.4%Background of RDA development 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%RDA’s relationship to ISBD 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 1.5%Using RDA with Dublin Core or other metadata standards 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 1.5%International Cataloguing Principles 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9%

N = 337.


contrast to Table 5 is the overwhelming importance placed on training copy cata-logers on “similarities and differences between AACR2 and RDA.” The largest percentage of the respondents (22.6%) selected “overview of RDA” as the most important topic, while it was hardly rated as the second or third most important topic for training cataloging staff. At the same time, there was much less emphasis on the underlying theoretical concepts that FRBR and RDA represent, such as the entity-relationship model. These results should not come as too much of a surprise to any cataloging managers because fo-cusing on relevant, practical information is key to effective staff skill development (Young, 2012). In preparing copy catalog-ers to transition to RDA in the everyday production environment, staff training that highlights the difference of handling RDA copy records from their existing AACR2 workflows naturally has a high practical value, possibly supplemented by an intro-ductory session about the new cataloging code itself.

RDA Training Time and Institutional Support

Another key consideration in RDA training is how much training time would be needed before professional catalogers and their staff can function confidently as RDA catalogers. In Sanchez’s survey (2011), the largest proportion of the re-spondents had no idea or could not say how much training time would be needed either for librarians or paraprofessionals (37.1% and 44.4%, respectively), while the second largest group (about 23%) opt-ed for 30 hours or more for RDA training. In the Australian and New Zealand RDA surveys, the largest percentage of the re-spondents (38% and 32%, respectively) indicated that “up to 2 full days” would be the acceptable training time for cataloging staff. The second and third choices varied slightly between the two surveys. In the Australian survey, 29 percent considered

“up to 1 full day” to be the acceptable time for RDA training, as opposed to 22 percent selecting “up to 3 full days.” In the New Zealand survey, 28 percent selected “up to 3 full days,” with another 25 percent opt-ing for “up to 1 full day.” Comments on this question also included “However long it takes!” and other similar responses, indi-cating, as the Australian report noted, that “many were willing for training, particu-larly for cataloguing staff, to last as long as necessary to cover the material.” Also, both surveys indicate that the respondents preferred continuing follow-up and sup-port over a long period, regardless of the methods used to deliver initial RDA train-ing (Kiorgaard, 2010; Todd et al., 2010).

While it may be professionally ideal for catalogers to spend whatever time it takes to be able to apply RDA properly, a more important question in the every-day production environment may be how much training time and resources their institutions would be prepared to com-mit for librarians and paraprofessionals. Support from employers may become an even more critical challenge in times of relatively stagnant or declining budgets, as extra training time could reduce every-day cataloging production for a while and cause increased backlogs in shrinking cat-aloging departments. Institutional support for RDA training was one of the key ques-tions asked in the 2010 British survey. For cataloging staff, more than 90 percent of the respondents expected that their insti-tutions would be prepared to commit two days or more to RDA training (Danskin, 2010). All together, these previous survey results suggest that most institutions are prepared to support staff training for the new cataloging code, at least in terms of releasing time during working hours to at-tend RDA-related training.

While asking the respondents the same question about the estimated RDA-related training time that their institutions would be prepared to commit, our current sur-vey also asked them to provide separate answers for librarians and paraprofession-


als. About four months prior to LC’s RDA implementation, the survey found that al-most half of the respondents still had no idea or were not sure about RDA training activities that would be supported at their libraries (see Table 7). For librarians, the second most common response was 31–40 hours of RDA training (20.6%), followed closely by 10 hours or less (17.5%). There was a clear indication that less time would be committed to train paraprofessionals for RDA, with more than a quarter of the respondents (26.1%) estimating 10 hours or less for RDA staff training, followed distantly by those expecting 11–20 hours (11.9%) and 31–40 hours (10.2%) at their libraries.

Was there any difference in institu-tional support expected by type of aca-demic library? As shown in Table 7, the results again revealed a notable differ-ence between research universities and 4-year colleges and universities. While a similarly large proportion of the respon-dents respectively did not know or were unsure about how long their institutions would likely devote to RDA training, the second most common response among the respondents from research universities (27.4%) was 31-40 hours, while 10 hours or less was the second choice for 4-year institutions (23.7%). The difference was

even more striking over RDA training in-tended for paraprofessionals. 18.5 percent of the respondents indicated 10 hours or less of staff training in research libraries, followed by those estimating 31–40 hours (14.4%) and 11–20 hours (13.4%). In con-trast, 10 hours or less of staff training were estimated by more than one-third of the respondents in 4-year institutions (35.2%), far outdistancing any of the other respons-es (11–20 hours = 6.5%, 21–30 hours and 31–40 hours = 3.7%).

RDA Training Method Preferences

In evaluating training needs for work-ing catalogers and other relevant profes-sionals, it is also important to know how they would prefer to have RDA training delivered so that training programs and methods made available will have the biggest impact and usage among the tar-get audiences. Despite the importance of this question, the two previous U.S. sur-veys did not pay any particular attention to the perceptions of the cataloging com-munity regarding RDA training programs and methods that have been offered since RDA’s official release.

During the U.S. RDA test period, the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Commit-tee (2011) gathered data on what training

Table 7. Estimated RDA Training Time Commitment by Institutions.

AllResearch

University4-Year

Institution

1–10 hoursLibrarians 17.5% 9.6% 23.7%

Paraprofessionals 26.1% 18.5% 35.2%







Do not know/Not sureLibrarians 44.4% 43.8% 49.2%


N = 525; 219 (Research University), 118 (4-Year Institution).


methods were used by the participating in-stitutions and individual testers. However, it did not include any survey question to draw conclusions about which training methods were actually preferred or the most effective—only concluding that a va-riety of methods for RDA training should be made available, ranging from in-person workshops to webinars. Neither did the survey questions in Sanchez’s study (2011) ask specifically about training methods. Still, her survey results showed that more than 60 percent of the respondents had se-rious concern about funding available for their RDA training. This result might sug-gest the potential attraction of free or low-cost training programs—most likely using online delivery methods—as training bud-gets are strained or even non-existent and as many libraries have difficulties bringing in outside trainers for on-site local training or sending their staff out to any extended training (see also Park et al., 2010).

By contrast, the non-U.S. surveys re-viewed earlier all included questions about how their respondents preferred RDA training to be delivered. In the Aus-tralian survey, blended learning—“online training to supplement face to face train-ing”—was the preferred delivery method for RDA training, followed by “offsite training” and “onsite training (using ex-ternal trainers)” (Kiorgaard, 2010). In the New Zealand survey, however, “offsite training” was slightly preferred to blended learning methods, although the impor-tance of online training resources was also emphasized. The survey identified a “clear signal for the creation of back-up online resources that can be used over a longer period of time” (Todd et al., 2010). In both countries, online training only and onsite training with in-house trainers who were trained first in train-the-trainer programs did not attract as much support as the other training methods. In the Canadian survey (TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group, 2010), the most preferred method for delivering RDA training was in-person training, either one-on-one or

in small groups. Webinars and other self-study methods like viewing PowerPoint slides or reading manuals on their own were not popular choices, a result that illus-trates the importance of hands-on training and interactive exercises in training expe-riences. Nevertheless, the Canadian report concluded that in-person training methods would be impractical for RDA implemen-tation due to their cost and accessibility. Instead, online training was recommended as a “key component of a Canadian train-ing plan,” and webinars were identified as a “principal method” for delivering quality training with the current Web technology. The report did emphasize the need to find ways to incorporate some types of interac-tion and hands-on exercises during online training, as requested in multiple com-ments by survey respondents. In the Brit-ish RDA survey (Danskin, 2010), in-house training using local resources (47%) or in-house trainers (41%) was among the most preferred methods for delivery of RDA training, followed by off-site training and online training (35% each). Interestingly, in-house training with external trainers was the least preferred method (28%), in contrast to its widespread acceptance in the Australian and New Zealand surveys.

To replicate these past survey ques-tions, our survey included questions about the perceptions of the cataloging commu-nity regarding the variety of RDA training programs and methods. The respondents were asked to indicate their top five pre-ferred methods for having RDA training delivered. As shown in Figure 7, there was a clear preference for self-study options, such as “reading documents, manuals, and other written training materials,” “view-ing PowerPoint or other visual training materials,” and “pre-recorded audiovisual presentations.” The survey responses also showed a strong interest in “webinars and other online training sessions to supple-ment in-person training.” “Webinars and other online training sessions only” re-ceived significant, yet not as strong, sup-port from the respondents.


While it appeared that face-to-face training methods were preferred, but not as strongly as self-study options described above (see Figure 7), a rather different picture emerges from Table 8, where the respondents were also asked to rank their preferred methods for delivery of RDA training. Here, “in-house training using external trainers” was the most preferred method of training for RDA. Notably, this training preference also represented a clear contrast with the predominance of various self-study methods in past RDA train-

ing experiences (see Table 3). In general, there was a preference for self-study op-tions as the top choice only when used to supplement face-to-face training. Overall, the respondents tended to prefer in-house, face-to-face training, either using external or internal trainers. It is also notable that off-site training was a somewhat popu-lar option only when offered at in-state venues. Clearly, these results confirmed findings from other recent studies about continuing education needs among cata-loging and metadata professionals. That

Figure 7. Top Five Methods for RDA Training, N = 451.


is, convenience and ease of access are key variables in shaping the preferred modes of delivery for RDA training. At the same time, the survey data also indicated that the availability of quality resources in multiple formats to support self-study or supplement face-to-face training is critical to successful training of practicing cata-logers for RDA. Library school courses were the least favorite choice among the respondents, a result that seems to confirm the low ratings for formal continuing edu-cation programs beyond terminal MLS de-grees (see Park et al., 2010).

In addition, our results revealed a sig-nificant divide in the current training en-vironments between research universities and 4-year colleges and universities. This divide became particularly notable when the respondents were asked to rank-order how they would prefer RDA training to be delivered. As shown in Table 9, the respon-dents from research universities indicated in-house, face-to-face training as the most preferred options—particularly one by using internal trainers. In contrast, while the respondents from 4-year colleges and universities also indicated a strong prefer-

Table 8. Top Five Methods for RDA Training, Ranked by Preference..

Training Method1st

choice2nd

choice3rd

choice4th

choice5th

choice

In-house training (using external trainers) 18.5% 6.9% 4.7% 5.2% 2.1%Reading documents, manuals, and other written training materials

15.4% 12.6% 14.0% 11.1% 19.4%

In-house training (using your own trainers) 14.5% 10.2% 3.8% 5.0% 3.8%Webinars and other online training sessions 8.8v 10.2% 9.7% 8.1% 7.6%Viewing PowerPoint or other visual training materials 7.8% 10.0% 15.4% 20.6% 9.2%Off-site training, in-state 7.6% 8.5% 6.4% 6.6% 9.2%Webinars and other online training sessions to supplement in-person training

7.6% 14.5% 20.6% 14.7% 11.8%

Pre-recorded audiovisual presentations 5.9% 13.7% 10.2% 13.3% 10.9%Off-site training, regional venue 4.5% 5.0% 3.8% 2.4% 4.5%Informal instruction from supervisor 3.8% 4.5% 6.4% 5.7% 8.3%Other 1.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 1.2%Off-site training, national venue 1.7% 1.2% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%Library school course 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 3.3%

N = 422.

ence for in-house training from external trainers, in-house training from internal trainers was rarely listed as their preferred option for RDA training. Apparently, such low ratings did not result from their low opinion of the training method itself. Rath-er, it seems reasonable to assume that the low level of interest in local training from internal trainers was a simple reflection of the fact that most catalogers in 4-year colleges and universities work in a small department of only one to three profes-sionals (see Figure 4), each with a broad range of everyday responsibilities. As a result, most of these institutions rarely have the resources to develop face-to-face training programs in-house, the most pre-ferred option at research universities. The respondents outside large academic librar-ies showed their preference instead for using external trainers, attending in-state off-site training, or self-directed study of documentation and manuals as sources for RDA training, although these training methods may not afford them the same advantage of continuing local trainer con-sultation and support after initial training delivery.


Tabl

e 9.

Top

Fiv

e M

etho

ds fo

r R

DA

Tra

inin

g, R

anke

d by

Pre

fere

nce,

R

esea

rch

Uni

vers

ity a

nd 4

-Yea

r In

stitu

tion

Res

pond

ents

.

Trai

ning

Met

hod

1st

choi

ce2n

d ch

oice

3rd

choi

ce4t

h ch

oice

5th

choi

ce

Res

earc

h U

nive

rsit

y4-

Yea

r In

stit

utio

nR

esea

rch

Uni

vers

ity

4-Y

ear

Inst

itut

ion

Res

earc

h U

nive

rsit

y4-

Yea

r In

stit

utio

nR

esea

rch

Uni

vers

ity

4-Y

ear

Inst

itut

ion

Res

earc

h U

nive

rsit

y4-

Yea

r In

stit

utio

n

In-h

ouse

trai

ning

(usi

ng y

our

own

trai

n-er

s)23

.7%

6.7%

14.2

%5.

6%5.

3%2.

2%5.

3%3.

3%3.

6%3.

3%

In-h

ouse

trai

ning

(usi

ng e

xter

nal t

rain

-er

s)16

.6%

24.4

%8.

9%3.

3%5.

9%4.

4%8.

3%3.

3%2.

4%2.

2%

Rea

ding

doc

umen

ts, m

anua

ls, a

nd

othe

r w

ritte

n tr

aini

ng m

ater

ials

13.0

%16

.7%

13.6

%8.

9%14

.8%

11.1

%12

.4%

8.9%

20.1

%21

.1%

Vie

win

g Po

wer

Poin

t or

othe

r vi

sual

tr

aini

ng m

ater

ials

11.8

%3.

3%12

.4%

12.2

%13

.6%

16.7

%17

.8%

21.1

%9.

5%7.

8%

Info

rmal

inst

ruct

ion

from

sup

ervi

sor

6.5%

2.2%

4.7%

3.3%

5.3%

5.6%

7.1%

3.3%

12.4

%7.

8%Pr

e-re

cord

ed a

udio

visu

al p

rese

ntat

ions

5.9%

4.4%

14.2

%15

.6%

9.5%

13.3

%12

.4%

10.0

%8.

9%16

.7%

Web

inar

s an

d ot

her

onlin

e tr

aini

ng s

es-

sion

s to

sup

plem

ent i

n-pe

rson

trai

ning

5.9%

6.7%

15.4

%14

.4%

21.3

%17

.8%

13.0

%20

.0%

14.2

%10

.0%

Web

inar

s an

d ot

her

onlin

e tr

aini

ng s

es-

sion

s on

ly5.

3%11

.1%

6.5%

10.0

%10

.1%

10.0

%7.

7%11

.1%

5.3%

8.9%

Off-

site

trai

ning

, reg

iona

l ven

ue3.

6%5.

6%2.

4%12

.2%

2.4%

4.4%

1.8%

3.3%

4.7%

3.3%

Off-

site

trai

ning

, in-

stat

e3.

0%15

.6%

3.6%

10.0

%6.

5%11

.1%

5.9%

8.9%

8.9%

10.0

%O

ff-si

te tr

aini

ng, n

atio

nal v

enue

2.4%

1.1%

1.8%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

1.8%

2.2%

2.4%

0.0%

Oth

er1.

8%2.

2%0.

6%0.

0%0.

6%0.

0%1.

2%0.

0%0.

0%1.

1%Li

brar

y sc

hool

cou

rse

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

4.4%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

1.1%

2.4%

2.2%

N =

169

(Res

earc

h U

nive

rsity

); 90

(4-Y

ear

Inst

itutio

ns).


Conclusion

It will take a huge collective effort to convert the entire library community to the new cataloging standard. In the United States, LC’s Day One for RDA imple-mentation itself has passed without much fanfare, but our survey results clearly sug-gested that much still remained to be done in this transition period before the catalog-ing community as a whole felt competent enough to implement RDA with profes-sional confidence and expertise. In this study, we aimed to gain a better under-standing of the current state and needs of RDA training needs among cataloging and metadata practitioners on the eve of U.S. RDA implementation. Focusing on the ac-ademic library sector, we were interested in identifying their levels of professional preparedness and impacts of past RDA training on catalogers’ knowledge, RDA training content needed by practicing cata-logers, and preferred modes of delivering professional training for RDA.

While training activities since RDA’s release in 2010 showed a positive cor-relation with catalogers’ levels of RDA knowledge, the survey also found an alarmingly low level of reported familiar-ity with a broad range of RDA topics even on the eve of U.S. national RDA imple-mentation. Furthermore, the most consis-tent finding highlighted by our survey data was the existence of a substantial divide in professional preparation for RDA be-tween practitioners in research universi-ties and 4-year colleges and universities. The survey found different levels of RDA knowledge across the academic library cataloging community, with the respon-dents from research universities report-ing greater familiarity with all RDA top-ics included in the survey. This difference was also revealed in their RDA training experiences. While LC online materials and other online resources were the most popular sources of past RDA training, due in part to their convenience, cost, or flexibility, such self-directed training, as

well as face-to-face training from internal trainers or co-workers, were not received as often in 4-year colleges and universi-ties, a result that suggested a lower level of professional preparation for RDA among working catalogers in such institutions. A similar difference was also observed, for example, with regard to the significantly lower usage of the RDA Toolkit in 4-year institutions.

In terms of future RDA training needs, our survey found a clear emphasis on prac-tical RDA cataloging questions for work-ing catalogers. For paraprofessionals, an even stronger emphasis was placed on such practical RDA topics, which is not surprising in cataloging and metadata de-partments with ongoing focus on getting their work done in the production environ-ment. Alarmingly, institutional support for future RDA training was substantially lower in 4-year institutions, with nearly a quarter of the respondents estimating only 10 hours or less of RDA training supported by their employers. Current RDA training environments also appeared to vary signif-icantly. While face-to-face training from in-house trainers was clearly the most pre-ferred training delivery option in research universities, its ratings were markedly low among the respondents from 4-year insti-tutions, a result that apparently reflected the institutional settings in which catalog-ers tend to work within much smaller tech-nical services departments. While they also favored local, face-to-face training for RDA, our results showed that they did not expect to have sufficient resources for arranging an in-house trainer who could offer practical, effective training locally, particularly as they may be the only cata-loger in their libraries.

Our study was not without limitations, the foremost of which was our decision to conduct a replication study by repeating questions tested in previous RDA surveys as closely as possible. While this decision was to ensure comparability between the past studies and our current survey, those survey questions and answer choices may


not have been necessarily conducive to providing an accurate measure of how practitioners in the field truly feel about their professional needs for RDA training. In order to understand this critical ques-tion more fully, the findings of the current survey should be further supplemented by using other research methods, such as fol-low-up interviews with a sub-group of the survey participants. We plan to conduct a follow-up interview study to take a more in-depth, qualitative look at RDA train-ing and continuing education needs for cataloging staff working in the field. Our primary goal will be to use a sample of 10–12 interviews to understand common perceptions and experiences among two sub-populations identified in this study, cataloging and metadata professionals in research universities and 4-year colleges and universities (see Guest, Bunce, & Johnson 2006).

Despite these limitations, our results have identified a critical gap in current training environments across the academic library community. A clear picture that emerged is that 4-year academic institu-tions with a small cataloging staff may have to adopt and implement RDA in rela-tive isolation, often through solo training with limited institutional support (see also Kiorgaard, 2010; Todd et al., 2010). Con-sidering that there are more than 3,500 academic libraries in the United States (OCLC, 2013), most of which are not large research libraries, the survey results send a clear signal that it is particularly important to develop effective training programs that will meet the needs and delivery preferences of practicing profes-sionals in thousands of smaller cataloging and metadata departments so that the same training opportunities are offered regard-less of their institutional affiliations and local resources available.

References

Archer, T. A. (2008). Response rates to expect from Web-based surveys and what to do about it. Jour-

nal of Extension, 46(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2012). Academic library statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/trends

Bloss, M. E. (2011). Testing RDA at Dominican University’s Graduate School of Library and In-formation Science: The students’ perspectives. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 582–599. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616264

Carnegie classification of institutions of higher edu-cation. (2010). Retrieved from http://classifica-tions.carnegiefoundation.org/

Cronin, C. (2011). From testing to implementation: Managing full-scale RDA adoption at the Uni-versity of Chicago. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 626–646. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616263

Danskin, A. (2010). RDA in the UK: Summary of survey results. Paper presented at the CILIP Cata-loguing and Indexing Group Conference, Exeter, U.K. Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/events/CIG/2010/conf-exeter/programme/

Galesic, M. (2004). Dropout on the Web: Influence of changes in respondents’ interest and perceived burden during the Web survey. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American As-sociation for Public Opinion Research, Phoe-nix, Arizona. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_ci-tation/1/1/5/9/2/p115925_index.html

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903

IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. (1998). Functional requirements for bibliographic records. The Hague: International Federation of Library As-sociations and Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf

Intner, S. S. (2011). Farewell, cataloging—We hardly knew ye. Technicalities, 31(5), 1–10.

Kiorgaard, D. (2010). RDA training needs survey (Australia). Retrieved from http://www.nla.gov.au/lis/stndrds/grps/acoc/rda.html

Kuhagen, J. A. (2011). Training for the U.S. RDA Test. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 572–581. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616924

Leysen, J. M., & Boydston, J. M. K. (2005). Sup-ply and demand for catalogers: Past and future. Library Resources & Technical Services, 49(4), 250–265.

Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). On the re-cord: Report of the Library of Congress Working


Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/bibliograph-ic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf

Martell, C. (1981). The war of AACR 2: Victors or Victims. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 7(1), 4–8.

McCutcheon, S. (2011). RDA testing in triplicate: Kent State University’s experiences with RDA testing. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 607–625. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616262

OCLC. (2013). Global library statistics. Retrieved April 10, 2013 from https://www.oclc.org/global-library-statistics.en.html

Park, J., Tosaka, Y., Maszaros, S., & Lu, C. (2010). From metadata creation to metadata quality con-trol: Continuing education needs among catalog-ing and metadata professionals. Journal of Edu-cation for Library & Information Science, 51(3), 158–176.

Sanchez, E. R. (2011). RDA, AACR2, and you: What catalogers are thinking. In E. R. Sanchez (Ed.), Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century (pp. 20–70). Santa Barbara, CA: Librar-ies Unlimited.

Sanner, E. M. (2012). Preliminary training for RDA: A survey of cataloging department heads. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2/3), 213–241. doi: 10.1080/19386389.2012.699845

Shieh, J. (2011). Participation in the U.S. RDA Test program helped transform work habits at George

Washington University Libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 647–654. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.620224

Todd, C., Stretton, C., & Stewart, J. (2010). RDA training needs survey (New Zealand). Retrieved from http://nznuc-cataloguing.pbworks.com/RDA-page

Tosaka, Y., & Park, J. (2013). RDA: Resource Description & Access—A survey of the current state of the art. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 651–662. doi: 10.1002/asi.22825

TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Working Group. (2010). Summary of the survey conducted by TSIG RDA Training Needs Assessment Work-ing Group. Retrieved from http://rdaincanada.wikispaces.com/Survey

U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. (2011). Report and recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf

Wacker, M., Han, M.-J., & Dartt, J. (2011). Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with Non-MARC metadata standards. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49, 655–675. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616451

Young, N. K. (2012). Effective learning and teach-ing of RDA: Applying adult learning theory. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2/3), 188–198. doi: 10.1080/19386389.2012.699836

rda: training and continuing education needs in academic ... · rda: training and continuing...

Documents